The Color of Truth

Follow by Email

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Color is one of those mysteries in our
universe that scientists and philosophers have difficulty explaining. We see color in our everyday lives, and take
its existence for granted. But most philosophers and scientists agree that
color does not exist. At least, it does not exist within an object itself. It
seems to be a matter of human perception. Color is a good example of the crisis in
epistemology that confronts our postmodern world. How can we know the truth
about anything if the world comes to us filtered through the human mind?

My first car was a deep green 1965 Mercury Comet
Cyclone 289 V 8. There were times, usually in the evening, when light
would reflect off the car in a certain way giving the impression that it was
dark blue. It was a puzzling phenomenon to me, but I never once thought
my friends had stolen my car, painted it blue, and then returned it. My
Cyclone was dark green and I was sure of it, not just because the title said
so, but because my mind has a system of discernment that helps me navigate
through the puzzles and deceptions I encounter in everyday life.

Human beings engage in a process of analyzing data collected from our senses
and then integrate that sense-data into common understanding. This
process is what we can call our epistemological navigational system.
We navigate through all kinds of
information, and even though our information is always limited, and sometimes
tainted, we organize, evaluate, and then draw conclusions about what is real
and true as opposed to what is illusionary and false. Our common sense is not perfect, but it
usually works well enough to define our everyday experiences—usually. Common sense, however, does not always put us
on firm footing. Science has taught us
to be a bit more skeptical about our everyday common experiences.

It'saBeautifulMind

If you have ever seen the movie, It’s a
Beautiful Mind, you know that the human mind cannot always discern between
illusion and reality. Few of us are schizophrenic like John Nash, but
like Nash, we filter the world through our mind. We are reminded of the
little message which is scribed on the side mirror of our cars. "Objects are closer than they appear."
In other words, we see the world through the mirror of our mind. Our
perception of the world is a construct of reality, not reality itself.
But notice one of the ways Nash was able to detect his delusions. A
little girl named Marcee had been one of his friends for many years, but he
observed that she never grew up. He was able to discern that she was not
real because she never aged. Nash’s
ability to transcend his own perception of things made it possible for him to
discern truth from fiction. If we could never transcend our horizon
(range of knowledge), it would be impossible to correct our errors, or add
to our knowledge. We would be trapped in our own perspectives.

DoesColorReallyExist?

Philosophers and scientists have debated the nature of color for several centuries.
This may sound like a silly debate, but listen to the questions. Is
color part of the physical makeup of an object? Or is color a human
perception that is created in the mind of the perceiver? In other words,
is color an objective reality that exists independent of the mind? Or is
color a subjective experience that is dependent on human perception? For
example, why did I believe my Cyclone was green instead of blue? Why
could it not just as well have been the other way around? The answer may not be important when we are
talking about the color of cars, but it makes a big difference when we are
talking about important things like what medicine should I take, or how should
I treat my fellow human beings?

Common sense may suggest that objects have color but most scientists disagree.
Scientists have concluded that there is nothing within the molecular
structure of an object that can account for its color. Color is not one
of the properties of an object. Therefore color must originate from somewhere
outside the object itself. The standard scientific explanation for color
has been to suggest that color is a reflection of wavelengths given off by an
object's shape and texture. If this is true, then an objective definition
of color can be established--somewhat. In other words, color is a
secondary quality which is derived from the primary qualities of an object.
The great British philosopher, John Locke made this argument over three
centuries ago.

This sounds like a reasonable way to go, but Eric Rubenstein, professor at
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, (see Color,
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), points out that there are problems
with this definition of color. For one thing, we have not really
explained what color is, we have only explained how color works. Why does
the surface texture of an object and wavelengths of light from an object
produce color, and why one color instead of another? But even more
puzzling, scientists have found that two objects can have different shapes and
textures, give off different wavelengths of light, and yet the perceiver can
experience the same color. Rubenstein explains:

For instance, light that is 100% 577nm (a nanometer
is a billionth of a meter)

will appear as pure
yellow. But light that is composed of 50% 540nm and 50%

670nm will appear
qualitatively indistinguishable. Since different physical

structures can
produce different wavelengths, all of which yield the same

color experience, it
appears we are left defining color as the structure of an

object by saying,
Yellow= microstructure 1 OR microstructure 2 OR

microstructure 3
OR....

This
is, in other words, a disjunction and yellow looks to be definable as a

disjunction only.
There is apparently no single physical property of objects,

or wavelengths, of reflections
of light, and so forth that all yellow objects have

in common--let along
yellow of non-ordinary objects like the sun, after

images, and so forth.

TheLimitationsofKnowledge

Rubenstein's point puts us back to square one. Our
common sense tells us that objects are colored. But scientists are agreed
that an object does not have color within itself, and efforts to explain color
as indirect results of physical efforts are unreliable, or at least do not tell
the whole story, then where do we go from here?